Tag Archive: CBS


“Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and also minister of armaments … had always struck me as one of the more decent Nazis … Later in the (Nürnberg) trial Speer would distinguish himself by being the only defendant to show remorse for his crimes.” – CBS Pulitzer Prize Correspondent William L. Shirer

The Russians wanted to simply string up all 22 Nazi defendants at Nürnberg.

In direct contrast, the Americans and Brits insisted on staging a legitimate trial (1945-1946) in which guilt must be proven, with the distinct possibility that not all defendants would receive the same verdict.

The Anglo Allies were guarding against the perception of “victor’s justice/vengeance,” and more importantly setting a precedent for all subsequent war crimes tribunals – even to the present day.

Was this a legal strategy, a public relations plan, or a combination of both?

The basic question posed for all Nazi defendants was, whether each of them was part of a vast conspiracy to wage aggressive war?

Ultimately, 12 Nazi warlords made the long walk to the gallows. A 13th dodged the noose, Luftwaffe boss Hermann Goering, by taking cyanide.

Albert Speer was convicted on two counts at Nürnberg:  Violations of the laws of war; and crimes against humanity, including the slaughter of the Jews.

And yet the tribunal sentenced him to 20 years in at Spandau Prison instead of the gallows pole.

Some refer to him as a “fraud.” Others label him as the “Nazi who said sorry.” Historian and writer Gitta Sereny repeatedly asked him for the truth; what did he know particularly when it came to slave labor under the worst conditions possible, and more to the point The Holocaust?

Did his deportment in court save him from the noose, and provide him with the opportunity to write two bestsellers while in prison and afterward: “Inside the Third Reich” (Speer’s memoirs) and “Spandau Diary” about his two decades behind bars?

Shirer described Speer as a “decent Nazi,” which sounds to Almost DailyBrett as the Mother of All Oxymorons.

Even as the global public revulsion against the Nazis grows and intensifies with time, the museum dedicated to the Nazi War Trials at the courthouse in Nürnberg segregates Speer from his Nazi defendant colleagues.

Movies about the end of the Third Reich (e.g., Die Untergang … The Downfall) and war trials (e.g., Nürnberg) both treat the memory of Albert Speer very well in comparison to his comrades.

Certainly he was not a saint … no Nazi can even come close to that characterization — but was he a monster?

The Most Important Public Relations of All: Personal PR

“After this trial, the German people will despise and condemn Hitler as the proven author of its misfortune. But the world will learn from these happenings not only to hate dictatorship as a form of government, but to fear it.” – Albert Speer, Final Statement at Nürnberg

What is your perception? What is your brand? What is your reputation?

Almost DailyBrett has always contended that Personal Public Relations is by far the most important and vital.

Speer took responsibility at Nürnberg. Speer showed remorse. Did he tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Did he separate himself from his fellow defendants by not trying to denigrate the proceedings? Did he piously state he was only following orders?

Was Speer simply trying to save his neck? Did he exhibit real contrition and concern about the future? Both?

Albert Speer was a Nazi. He was close to Hitler. He was the Third Reich’s architect and armaments minister, using slave labor.

Game, set and match?

Consider that Speer was well-educated at Heidelberg. He was an accomplished architect. He was a renowned writer. He was good-looking with a calm personality, not a raving madman.

He defied Hitler’s “Scorched Earth” directive at the end of the war to destroy Germany’s ability to serve its people with the most basic provisions. Reportedly, he flew to the Berlin Bunker to tell Hitler, he had not followed his directive.

He walked out of the Bunker alive.

Speer claimed to have tried to kill Hitler as the Russians were moving ever closer to Berlin.

He was known for his evil friend (e.g., Hitler),  and also for his cutthroat enemies (e.g., Himmler and Goering).

The Verdict

“Twenty years. Well … that’s fair enough. They couldn’t have given me a lighter sentence, considering the facts, and I can’t complain. I said the sentences must be severe, and I admitted my share of the guilt, so it would be ridiculous if I complained about the punishment. — Speer After The Judgment at Nürnberg

After name after name was called by the judges with a corresponding sentence of death by hanging, Speer was given 20 years. He served the entire sentence at Spandau Prison in Berlin, tending to the gardens, taking long walks and secretly working on his memoirs.

History has already rendered a harsh judgment on Speer, but not as scathing as it could be.

Speer could have hanged, but he lived a full life, writing two best-selling books until he finally succumbed in 1981, 35 years after the conclusion of the Nürnberg Trials and subsequent executions.

Personal public relations could have saved even a Nazi, Albert Speer, from the hangman’s noose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp1RXmM1-60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7wVl09c2c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyHWpubyv4I

http://www.go2war2.nl/artikel/4573/Final-statement-Albert-Speer.htm

https://www.famous-trials.com/nuremberg/1935-speercross

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvbaW6kG1Ow

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-candor-and-lies-of-nazi-officer-albert-speer-324737/

 

 

 

 

“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” – Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor from 1962-1981

When asked what sports historians would take away from his record (e.g., five home runs) performance in the 1977 World Series, Baseball Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson paused and humbly proclaimed: “The magnitude of me.”

What about the “magnitude” of former CBS anchor Dan Rather?

The question is particularly relevant today as former CBS anchor Dan Rather is attempting a relevancy comeback at 86-years-old.

With his new book, “What Unites Us, Reflections on Patriotism,” Rather appears to be trying to escape the embarrassing details of his bitter 2005 termination … err resignation.

More to Almost DailyBrett’s point: Should Rather be seen as The Father of Affirmational Journalism?

Affirmational Journalism? Do these two words constitute an oxymoron?

Affirmational Journalism (e.g., Rather) is the mirror opposite of Informational Journalism (e.g., Cronkite).

Under the tenets of Informational Journalism, a news outlet will sift through the relevant facts and information – including both sides of every story — and deduce a logical conclusion for readers or viewers to decide.

Is there any wonder that Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America in 1972?

The esteem for American Journalism peaked in 1976 at 72 percent (e.g., Gallup survey), shortly after Woodward and Bernstein’s Pulitzer Prize reporting and the demise of the Nixon administration. The same poll revealed that public trust for the media plummeted for four decades to 32 percent in 2016.

What happened to the days when the vital First Amendment mission of the media was to inform and enlighten?

Enter Rather as the successor to Cronkite in the CBS anchor chair in 1981. Shortly thereafter, the seeds of today’s Affirmational Journalism were planted.

Certainly, there were outlets in 1972 and beyond that editorially represented the left (e.g., New York Times) and the right (e.g., Wall Street Journal), but the news pages of these publications were essentially straight.

Rather: Keynoting the GOP National Convention?

“(Rather) stepped on his own dick.” – Ronald Reagan, 1988

Two celebrated incidents involving Republican presidents (not Democratic) clearly demonstrated how Rather’s aim was to “affirm” preset narratives, not to totally “inform:”

  1. His rudeness against then Vice President George H.W. Bush in a cataclysmic 1988 live interview, which included Bush reminding the world that Rather stormed off his set one year before, when a U.S. Open tennis match ran too long.
  2. Rather’s ill-fated 2004 60 Minutes piece (e.g., Rathergate), confusing the fonts of an IBM Selectric with those offered by Microsoft. The forged 1972 document reportedly proved that President George W. Bush received special treatment as a member of the National Guard. Alas for Rather, the letter was written with a Microsoft font.

Microsoft was not founded until 1975 – three years later. Oops.

Dan Rather was exposed for his eagerness and glee to accept any “fact” that fit a preordained narrative about George W. Bush and his National Guard service. More importantly, he and his producer, Mary Mapes, were terminated at CBS for practicing Affirmational Journalism, which sought out tidbits (e.g., the forged letter) that affirmed and fit the story and excluding those (e.g., Microsoft font) that did not.

Rather’s mission was to “affirm” through selective reporting the predisposed reigning political philosophy of elites residing east of the Hudson and within the confines of the Beltway:

Democrat John Kerry was good; Republican George W. Bush needed to be excused from office.

Today, the list of affirmational elite media on the left is long: New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC. The list of affirmational media on the right is shorter: Fox News.

Whether these major media outlets reside on the left or the right, their mission is to affirm, sustain and enhance entrenched narratives that advance a chosen political philosophy.

Is Dan Rather solely responsible for this movement toward affirming, whether through interpretation or presenting, preordained narratives? No. There are others.

Is he the poster child for affirmational journalism and with it a record 32 percent low in national esteem for the media? Almost DailyBrett is making that assertion.

Affirmational Journalism Schools?

As a college assistant professor in a school of communication, the author of Almost DailyBrett worries that future journalists will be trained to seek facts and figures that fit a preconceived narrative, and ignore those inconvenient points that potentially contradict the “story.”

Are the ends of supporting an adopted political philosophy more important than the means of not presenting both sides of a story? If that is indeed the case and we are no longer informing the public about the positions of both sides, can we call this behavior Journalism?

There are some of us who yearn for the better days of a free-and-fair media.  The Fourth Estate can potentially come back; just the same way Rather is trying to revive his tarnished reputation.

Can the media return to the days of Informational Journalism? Or is Affirmational Journalism here to stay, contributing to and hardening our divided society for years to come?

Maybe if the media moves to adopt the model of Walter Cronkite — not Dan Rather — we will all be better off as an American society.

We can only hope.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/12/12/this-has-to-be-unacceptable-dan-rather-on-media-attacks-and-politics-in-america-under-trump/?utm_term=.6cdffc95176a&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82268&page=3

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/has-the-media-reached-the-point-that-it-can-never-cover-trump-fairly/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/07/22/from-affirming-back-to-informing/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-Cronkite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mapes

It’s been all downward-to-the-right for the media since the days of Walter Cronkite.

Quick: Name the Big Three Network anchors?

Can’t do it? Join the club.

Oh have times changed.

In 1972, the revered anchor of the CBS Evening News, Walter Cronkite, was the most trusted man in America.

In 2017, do we trust Sean Hannity of Fox News to be “fair and balanced” with the news?

Do we trust Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to be objective?

Do we trust the latest political “comedian” on Comedy Central to be thoughtful?

Do we trust what we read on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook to be accurate?

Fair. Balanced. Objective. Thoughtful. Accurate. Those were all words that applied to Cronkite. Do they apply anymore?

As Almost DailyBrett mentioned before, the public gave the media a 72 percent approval rating in 1976 and only 32 percent in 2016.

Gallup’s surveys reflect a corresponding slide by Democrats, Independents and particularly Republicans in the past two decades.

In 1997, 64 percent of Democrats reported a great deal/fair amount of trust in the media. In 2016, that figure declined to 51 percent, a 13 percent drop.

For independents, the erosion in the last 20 years was 53 percent (just above the Mendoza Line) to 30 percent last year, a 23 percent decline.

For Republicans, 41 percent of GOP voters expressed a great deal/fair amount of trust in the media in 1997. That figure was 14 percent in 2016, a stunning 27 percent erosion in two decades.

In a match-up between CNN and Donald Trump, 89 percent of GOP voters expressed confidence in the president while only 9 percent sided with the number three cable news network.

Is there any plausible reason to optimistically hope these results will improve in the Trump era?

For CNN, it has now dropped to number three in a three-way race of major cable news outlets having been surpassed by liberal MSNBC for the number two slot behind No. 1 conservative Fox News.

Liberal? Liberal? Conservative?  What happened to honest brokers of information?

From Reporting to Interpreting?

Want to make a slow Friday night even slower? Watch “Washington Week in Review” on PBS in which reporters interview … reporters.

It used to be that reporters/correspondents covered the news. Now we are all entitled to their “interpretation.”

Remember what Clint Eastwood as “Dirty Harry” said about opinions? Every reporter, editor, correspondent has one and you are privileged to hear what they have to say. Instead of covering the news makers, they see themselves as the real news.

Except … this Donald Trump character seems to get in the way, particularly with his nocturnal tweets.

Should university journalism schools abandon teaching the quaint notion of objectively informing the public that desperately wants straight news?

How about simply declaring the stakes are too high to be truly objective, and encourage future reporters/correspondents to openly display their partisan instincts and guide the public in affirming their own deeply held political philosophies?

And then journalists can write and broadcast about the deeply divided nation they helped foster.

Should journalism schools endeavor to generate more of the likes of Dan Rather and Brian Williams? Almost DailyBrett doesn’t need to regurgitate how the two elite former champions of CBS and NBC respectively brought lasting shame to the media.

What strategies should schools of journalism and communication adopt to restore professionalism to the profession? Surely the task is worthy, particularly bringing objectivity back into to the classroom discussion.

Is it time to inform the public once again?

Will we know that journalism has recovered when the next Walter Cronkite becomes the most trusted man/woman in America?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/13/daily-202-trump-is-the-disrupter-in-chief-in-an-age-of-disruption/5966a386e9b69b7071abcb23/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amid-turmoil-fox-news-holds-on-to-no-1-spot-as-msnbc-surges-1499601601

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31152849

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/anchors-bring-new-era-network-stability-article-1.1922051

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/

 

 

“If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it.” – CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewing Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord

Do you think Anderson Cooper has reached the point (and beyond) in which he can’t cover Donald Trump objectively and fairly let alone his network, CNN?

According to Harvard University, the answer following empirical research of media coverage by CNN and several other major outlets during the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency is a resounding, “no.”

Let’s pretend Donald Trump did something really good for the country … and didn’t nocturnally crow about it on Twitter?

Before answering this interrogative, let’s first pose a relevant side question: Who do reporters, editors, correspondents respect more than any other living creatures on this planet? The answer is other reporters, editors and correspondents.

Taking this essential and undeniable truth into account, Almost DailyBrett must ask:

Can a reporter — any reporter, editor or correspondent — outside of the friendly confines of Fox News – write or produce a totally objective piece about Trump without triggering the wrath and disdain of his or her precious media colleagues?

Would that journalist be willing to take the risk of enraging the pack mentality, and maybe even jeopardizing a career?

It appears to be seemingly impossible for a CNN or NBC reporter/correspondent in particular to provide positive coverage of Trump as evidenced by new data harvested by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. Harvard reported that 93 percent of CNN and NBC’s first 100 days of Trump coverage have been overwhelmingly negative.

Seven percent of CNN and NBC Trump coverage has been positive? It doesn’t seem that high.

Right behind in the race to the bottom is CBS at 91 percent negative coverage, surprisedly beating even the New York Times with 87 percent and Washington Post with 83 percent respectively thumbs-down coverage of The Donald and his administration.

Conservative media outlets tilt to the negative on Trump, but they simply cannot compete with the Clinton News Network (CNN) or the networks of Meet the Depressed or Deface the Nation. The Wall Street Journal’s coverage is 70 percent to the negative, and even Fox News is 54/46 percent to the downside.

MSNBC was not even measured.

The only Trump story that was covered in a positive manner by the newsies was the launching of cruise missiles at poison-gas Syria with 80 percent of the media on the Trump side of the ledger. Guess the remaining 20 percent may be secretly siding with Bashar Assad or more likely … can’t bring themselves to say anything remotely positive about Trump.

As a result, Trump hates the media. The media hates Trump. And Sean Spicer was last seen in the bushes.

The Donald claims he is not being covered fairly compared to his predecessors. Conservative bastion Harvard backs up this contention. Barack Obama’s coverage during the first 100 days was 59 percent positive; George W. Bush’s was 43 percent affirmative; Bill Clinton’s was 40 percent positive … Donald Trump, 20 percent to the positive.

Is the media not-so-secretly rooting for Trump to be impeached, while trying to implicate Mike Pence as well? Consider the instant parallel to Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” with James Comey’s firing.

Almost DailyBrett always thought that a massacre required more than one person.

Below the Mendoza Line

The media feasts on Donald Trump’s record 54 percent negative approval rating. According to the same Real Clear Politics average, Trump has a 39.6 percent positive approval rating.

Gallup reported last fall the nation’s approval of the work provided by the media stands at only 32 percent or 8 percent behind Donald Trump.

The same polling firm reported that 72 percent of Americans approved and admired the media’s standing and coverage in 1976, right on the heels of the Watergate busting Pulitzer Prize work of Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein. Since that time, public approval of the media has dropped 40 percent in as many years.

Could it be, the media has become more partisan, more “interpretive” and less objective (i.e., CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO)? Do the media feed our nation’s divisiveness? Do they regale in the internecine warfare and bickering, while being above it all?

What’s next: Streaming video of the 21st Century version of a fatal Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton duel with tisk-tisk anti-Second Amendment commentary by Rachel Maddow?

If the media was a stock with a 40 percent sustained decline during four decades – essentially down to the right – a wise investor would have dumped these shares a long time ago. Putting this metaphor aside, does it sound like the American public with only 32 percent support (e.g., 14 percent among Republicans) has rolled their eyes in unison and washed their collective hands of the media?

Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America in 1972 in an era when the media informed the public. Today, the likes of Maddow on MSNBC and Sean Hannity on Fox News essentially affirm philosophies of entrenched political populations segments. Ditto for social media.

Anderson Cooper’s disgusting metaphor about presidential defecation can be dismissed as an unprofessional verbal assault in the heat of battle. CNN’s and NBC’s 93 percent negative coverage of Trump and his administration points directly to the fact the newsies have reached a point they can no longer be fair and objective to the president.

And who are the ultimate losers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/anderson-cooper-apologizes-for-conjuring-image-of-trump-defecating-on-his-desk/?utm_term=.a458d852d72c

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/?mod=sm_tw_post

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

http://www.edelman.com/executive-summary/

 

 

 

 

Has it come to this?

Is it November, yet?colbertswastika

If the polls are to be believed:

The majority of Americans don’t like Hillary.

And they really detest The Donald.

Yes, it’s the worst choice in the history of the republic.

That’s a strong summation, but does anyone doubt this statement is true?

Almost DailyBrett has publicly implored for a third-choice, for a third-way.

Your author voted for John Kasich in the primary, and was thinking about writing in his name in the fall.

Now, I am not so sure.

In June, Stephen Colbert of CBS tried to be funny by drawing a swastika on a chalk board to describe Donald Trump’s political philosophy in the aftermath of terrorism against an Orlando LGBT nightclub.

And Kasich resorted to an Internet ad last November essentially making a similar comparison. How’s that for “positive” campaigning?

John, you were smart to stay away from the convention (see Ted Cruz reaction), but his ad was beneath you … way beneath you. kasichtrump

If you are going to compare America to Nazi Germany at least understand a little history first.

This Is Not a Casual Subject

Evoking memories of Hitler, the Nazis, the Gestapo, the Concentration Camps and the Holocaust for pure political purposes is the public relations equivalent of handling dynamite in a dark room.

First, this practice is insensitive to the very few remaining souls, who survived this horrific period of time (1933-1945) and their families.

Second, politics have always been as Mary Matalin described a “contact sport,” but once you bring up Hitler where do you go from there?

Third, these sorry comparisons are made without total comprehension of the eras, politics and government between the two nations.

Germany following World War I was a defeated nation under the auspices of the Versailles Treaty. The resulting Weimar Republic was weak with a myriad of political parties.

Inflation rates were out of control including a hotel room for 400,000 DM, dinner for 1.8 million DM and a half-liter of milk, 250,000 DM … and then came the Depression.

Hitler seized upon this widespread misery to gain power, never winning the majority of the popular vote. Upon becoming the leader, his party suspended (and burned) the parliamentary Reichstag and passed enabling laws making Hitler the supreme dictator of a police state on steroids. The German media was totally controlled by Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine. It was a well-documented nightmare from there.nazirally

In comparison, America is an exemplary nation and an enduring democracy that has stood the test of time for 240 years and counting. We won both World Wars; Germany lost two of them. We defeated Communism and helped bring down the Berlin Wall. We are the only nation to put a man on the moon.

We have a strong, if not polarized government, with two powerful political parties. We have a system of checks and balances that modulates the activities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. We have a free, independent akin to herding cats media, representing virtually every point of view.

Inflation has not been an issue since the mid-1980s. In fact, it is running at approximately 1 percent this year potentially tipping into deflation territory. The unemployment rate stands at 4.9 percent with 287,000 jobs created in June, albeit many of these positions are part-time without benefits.

Seemingly, terrorism and police shootings du jour  give one the sense of a dark new normal. To describe Donald Trump’s acceptance speech Thursday night as dystopian is accurate. Having said that, trying to compare Trump with Der Führer strikes this humble writer as extremely careless and irresponsible.

There are oodles of reasons to oppose Trump, but the ugliest of name calling and association reduces the reputation and brand of the one making this vile comparison. Stephen Colbert doesn’t care, but John Kasich should care.

Our system of government celebrates its division, but not gridlock. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wrote a great tome entitled “Tip and The Gipper: When Politics Worked. Ronald Reagan and the Republicans ran the executive branch. Tip O’Neill was the speaker of the house and the Democrats controlled Congress.TipGipper

Even though they saw the world very differently, these two Irish-ancestry pols respected and liked each other including frequent 6 pm adult-beverage sessions. When Reagan was shot in 1981, it was Democrat Tip O’Neill who prayed at the bedside of the Republican president.

Last week was the GOP convention in Cleveland and the rhetoric at times was white hot. This coming week is the Democrats turn in Philadelphia and the rhetorical cannons are aimed and ready to return fire.

After the last gavel comes down, one would hope we could chill for the remainder of the summer, realizing the ultimate testing ground will be the presidential debates beginning on September 26 at Hofstra University. Almost DailyBrett would gladly pay a pretty penny to sit in the first row for the ultimate political theatre: Hillary vs. The Donald.

It’s incredibly sad the world’s worst-ever human being, Hitler, is being invoked in July. One can only imagine what will follow in August … September … October … November and beyond.

Can we go any lower in terms of political invective?

It may not be Morning in America any longer, but it is not midnight either.

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/did-a-perfect-storm-lead-to-the-gathering-storm/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/24/the-ad-in-which-john-kasichs-campaign-seems-to-compare-donald-trump-to-hitler/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/entertainment/stephen-colbert-donald-trump-swastika-nazi/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/15/stephen-colberts-brutal-takedown-of-donald-trumps-orlando-response-includes-a-swastika/

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/in-search-of-a-third-option/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/back-to-the-1980s/

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Sometimes the most obvious question is the question. In Enron’s case: How do you make money?” — Fortune Magazine Reporter Bethany McLean.

bethany-mcleanx140

The simple answer was Enron wasn’t making money; the company was losing money hand-over-fist.

Enron was hiding these massive losses from regulators, investors, suppliers, partners and most of all, its own massively investing-in-Enron-stock employees.

Still investors poured billions into Enron simply because the stock was going up big time. The majority had no idea about how Enron made money in its energy, bandwidth and weather (go figure) trading schemes and didn’t seem to care because the stock was skyrocketing. As Martha would say: “It (was) a good thing.” Yep, a good thing until the house of cards came tumbling down in a 2001 bankruptcy filing, crashing and burning.

What was that about how does a company makes money?

As we head into the next round of hysteria as yet a third social media provider goes IPO (Initial Public Offering), this one, Twitter, under the ticker, TWTR, one needs to contemplate Bethany McLean’s most obvious of all questions.

twitterjackdorsey

How does Twitter make money?

How does LinkedIn make money?

How does Facebook make money?

How does J.C. Penne’ make money? Hint: It doesn’t.

This simple question needs to be posed to and answered by all publicly traded companies, whether they play in the new economy or the old economy.

The need to quickly, credibility and confidently answer this question, preferably in a brief elevator pitch, solidifies the need for well-trained and highly skilled corporate public relations, investor relations, crisis communications, brand and reputation management practitioners.

Teaching upper-division public relations courses, I would flash images of corporate logos up on the screen and ask students how Company A or Company B makes money.

In our quick media world — whether by conventional or digital means — the millennial digital native generation, more than any other that preceded it, has been bombarded incessantly on all sides by brands.

After initial hesitations, the students were quickly and enthusiastically recalling what the brand means in term of how a company makes money, and even “positioning” companies in their respective market spaces (e.g., BMW vs. VW: Nordstrom vs. Macy’s; Southwest vs. United). Starbucks and McDonald’s both sell upscale coffee. They now both offer drive-through windows. They are the same. Right? Wrong.

As mentioned before in Almost DailyBrett, LinkedIn and Facebook are both social media outlets. To Wall Street they couldn’t be more different.

LinkedIn debuted at $45 in 2011 and now trades at $245.13.linkedin_logo_11

Facebook went public at $38 in 2012 and now trades at $51.01.

zuckerberg

LinkedIn has been able to easily answer the how it makes money question (e.g., monetizes social media) by pointing to “connections,” premium services, advertising and the fact that LinkedIn is the choice for recruiters, job hunters, network builders and those seeking business leads.

Facebook is finally starting to gain traction in the market after its disastrous NASDAQ IPO. The company has been plagued by how do “friends” correlate with the legal tender?

Will 140-character per tweet Twitter be the next LinkedIn, the next Facebook or just maybe the first Twitter in the eyes of Wall Street investors?

A CNBC report this week pointed to Twitter’s relationship with the hard-to-get National Football League and CBS in which video supplied by both will be available for tweets. Wall Street may very well see a ka-ching correlation with this deal.

The deal and others, plus the recently announced Twitter S-1 (e.g., company prospectus) may have a direct bearing on what will be the pricing and Wall Street response to the much-anticipated IPO.

As more companies pursue the IPO route, minus the ones that opt to rebuild in privacy (e.g., Dell), that means even more opportunities for skilled-and-trained corporate public relations, investor relations, crisis communications, brand-and-management protection pros.

Conservatively, there are more than 5,100 publicly traded companies on the two major exchanges, the NYSE Euronext and NASDAQ. There are thousands more on overseas exchange, such as Japan’s Nikkei, Hong Kong’s Hang Sang, Britain’s “Footsie” or FTSE, France’s CAC-40 and Germany’s DAX.

Each of these companies, most definitely those in America, has reporting requirements on an annualized and quarterly basis. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) mandates 10-Q quarterly earnings reports; 10-K annual reports to shareholders; 8-K unscheduled “material” information disclosure announcements; S-4 additional share purchases, an annual meeting with shareholders, and of course, an S-1 filing of a privately held company prospectus prior to an IPO.

All of these filings require on-target prose, delivered conventionally and digitally, employing text, audio and video. Who are these message builders? Who will train them? And where can they be found?

As long as a publicly traded company is in business, it must report. It must communicate. It has absolutely no choice.

Quite clearly, the demand for these highly skilled corporate PR and investor relations practitioners outstrips the supply. Maybe that’s why they are compensated at a PR segment high average of $117,233 annually.

Sounds like an upwards-to-the-right market for qualitative-and-quantitative PR/IR types.

Full-Disclosure Note: The editor of Almost DailyBrett at various times owned shares of both LinkedIn and Facebook, only to subsequently sell the stocks. He fully anticipates as a mere retail investor being a late arrival to the upcoming Twitter IPO, if only to follow TWTR on a daily basis…Thank God he never bought into Enron.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131003191330-270738-with-twitter-s-ipo-5-key-things-you-need-to-understand-about-the-social-ad-revolution

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/10/03/twitter-reveals-long-awaited-ipo-plans-253m-revenue-in-first-half-of-2013/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/twitter-discloses-its-i-p-o-plans/?_r=0

%d bloggers like this: